R26 vs Sydney FC | Sat 8th April | 7:35pm | ROF

Just on the timing of the VAR (and putting side any foul on Rossi), 

68:53 Foul occurs 

69:26 Ref whistles to check 

70:19 Penalty awarded 

71:43 Goal scored

IF THE REF DIDNT SEE IT AND PLAYERS CANT ASK WHAT MADE HIM CHECK UP ON IT

Gillette at his usual low standard in other words.

Im just pissed off at administrators fudging up the beauty of the whole experience. And then they moan that the metrics arent good enough. The use of the VAR was at the wrong time - should never be half way through a season. And clearly the process is not thought through, not equitable and wont ensure that the correct decision is made in all cases - in which case whats the point? Have they considered the impact on the spectatorss - if that play had continued for several minutes and maybe the Phoenix had scored, its gonna be carnage. What if someone has committed a red card offence in that 'ignored' passage of play?

And another personal gripe of mine, why oh why did we play in a horrible all black kit that made it very hard to watch from the stands. Dont they think of the paying audience? Did you see how much the ref stood out in his yellow shirt - that should have been our players.  Black is an awful colour to try to watch - even bloody yellow shorts would have made a huge difference, although for the life of me I dont understand why we cant where yellow and black stripes at home.  So Executives, if you wonder why the crowds are so small, think about the product you are dishing up.

All this is a shame cos I thought the Phoenix played quite well.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/well...

This is just a straight up lie. There were 10 seconds between the incident and the full time whistle. It took almost 90 seconds to judge Rossi's one. But now it's suddenly 10 seconds. Please.

Pass of the night, ball girl to Roly that led to Mcglincheys goal. Less then two seconds from ball going out to the throw in.

Considering players are supposed to be booked for asking for VAR  about half players on field should have been booked

Now we know how much Gillet loves the Phoenix. But for VAR to work they have to consider the first offence. Hand of Sydney player is attached to Rossi's jersey and is climbing on him  VAR free kick to Phoenix, NO it's Gillet - did not see that in slow motion. Hence Evans is walking back to Nix goal as soon as whistle is blown for offside.  (Follow on in slowmo and you see Rossi pulled backward and arm comes up)

What is the ruling as to when things maybe stopped to check? Is it next stoppage? Quite feasibly play good go on for 5 minutes

Imagine if the next stoppage is a goal, or someone picking up a second yellow. What happens then? It'd be an absolute farce

One from the CWC was horrible

27:51 Foul comitted

28:38 Ball does out for the first time

29:37 Ref signals for review. 

So the two VAR games the Nix have been involved in (Capital Stick of wood Trophy) and the weekend have both involved Penalty Decisions. One for the Nix, one against. Both contentious. Isn't the whole system designed to take away the contention?

I love that this VAR stuff has distracted from the fact that another dismal season is over.

Vainly Awaiting Results

The ref's call was wrong though because if he had seen the handball and the foul then it would have been a free kick to us, because you can't play advantage if there's a second infringement. I know this is bullshark and illogical but I bet this is the line of reasoning: ref doesn't see handball so has to be reviewed, but video ref can't rule on attacking foul so penalty has to be given.

Edit: I'm not necessarily talking about the Rossi incident, just in general terms

Circus league.

To rule on some things and not others only serves to add a layer of inconsistency. The decision the other night perfectly highlights that. 

A referee making calls does result in some incorrect decisions, but at least that human error is consistent across all decisions throughout a match.

Consistency is more desirable than getting the odd incorrect decision overturned to be correct, surely? 

I'm much more willing to forgive a referee for making a mistake when he only gets one chance to see it and rule on it than I am for a VAR who gets to view the incident in slow motion from Up To Fourteen Different Camera Angles™.

I've been listening to some of the reaction out of the West Island on the daily football show, both Sunday and yesterday they were fapping on about how great the VAR was and how it did it's job perfectly. It seems that they're all aware that the purpose of the VAR is to screw us over, and he did exactly that.

They don't even admit that this decision was at all controversial.

Same with Fox Sports employees - seen Adam Peacock's piece fapping over how good VAR is? Remember that his employer put $$$ into setting up their VAR system so therefore are anything but impartial in commenting on how successful it is. 

I was surprised at the lack of comments from fans of other clubs seeing as SFC are hardly popular. I even thought maybe we were all being a bit one eyed so I went back and watched again but no, the push is blatantly obvious. I don't know why more people haven't talked about it.

So the NZ defender is fouled into a handball and that is a penalty but Sydney whine louder so penalty? How is that impartial? #welvsyd @FFA

— Shirley Bright (@ShirleyBright90) April 8, 2017

Was unaware of the DFS vs Fever issue, but that makes a bit of sense. I often felt like they were giving us a hard time, but thought this reflected the views of the Australian public (their intro claims to be "fiercely independent"). I always take the Fox guys with a massive grain of salt. I might try looking a little further for an opinion across the ditch in future. 
The main supporter of VAR on their pod has been Matt Windley from the Herald Sun

Fox is Fair and Balanced. 

Brilliant cartoon this week from David Squires on the VAR

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2...